Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bust Éireann
Options
Comments
-
The Galway-Dublin Express route awarding is somewhat public following the court case over Citylink's illegal operation of express services and subsequent award of a licence over Bus Eireann despite Bus Eireann having applied for one several YEARS earlier.
The ludicrous idea that it should be 'illegal' to run a bus service is at the core of the problem really...0 -
-
My question to the NTA is, did they realise when issuing licences to operators who pay their drivers much less than BE, that this was likely to put BE under unsustainable financial pressure?
If they did not realise that why not, and if they did, what was their attitude to that?
In any case, there should have been legislation to ensure that all operators had terms and conditions comparable to BE's.
Labour in government had an opportunity to do this. Why did they not?0 -
The ludicrous idea that it should be 'illegal' to run a bus service is at the core of the problem really...
It is illegal to run without obtaining a relevant licence, those are the regulations that apply to ALL operators Bus Eireann included.
The UK have deregulated bus services where anybody can apply to run where and whenever they please and it is an unholy mess. There are constantly changing services, fly-by-nights that go out of business and "bus wars" with competing operators running 2 minutes ahead of competitors to bully them out of business.
On top of that any services that operators don't deem profitable are left to either the cash-strapped local authorities to fund or people can go without. In the last few years many councils have just ditched all subsidised bus services leaving many places with big gaps or no service at all.
A frequent sight is a timetable with one operator running regular services all day until 7pm Monday to Saturday with no evening or Sunday service so the council step in and tender for the gaps, awarding the service to a different operator who don't accept the main operator's tickets.
Unregulated competition works in some sectors, the British experience strongly shows that public transport is one area that it doesn't. Rail services across Britian have seen passenger numbers explode over the last decade while outside London (where bus services are tightly regulated) bus passenger numbers are falling.
The semi-competition model being peddled by the NTA works to a certain extent for the main inter-city journeys but there is plenty of evidence now that it doesn't and won't for the rest of our bus network where the reduction in services on supposedly commercial routes has led to poorer services for passengers.0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »My question to the NTA is, did they realise when issuing licences to operators who pay their drivers much less than BE, that this was likely to put BE under unsustainable financial pressure?
If they did not realise that why not, and if they did, what was their attitude to that?
In any case, there should have been legislation to ensure that all operators had terms and conditions comparable to BE's.
Labour in government had an opportunity to do this. Why did they not?
That would be unenforceable and against any number of EU and Irish rules.
Also the gap between pay is not nearly as large as some make out.0 -
Advertisement
-
If Irish and EU law forbids that, then that is a scandal.
Could there not be a sectoral regulating agreement such as that in the hospitality sector?0 -
Boulevardier wrote: »If Irish and EU law forbids that, then that is a scandal.
Huh?
You think EU law should stifle competition by artificially inflating pay rates to unsustainable public sector levels?0 -
schemingbohemia wrote: »NTA are subject to FOI Vic_08 - how many applications have you made to them?
I haven't made any FOI because I am aware what their response will be from others who have tried. And thanks to a previous government the FOI process has inflated charges through the process with requests, responses, photocopying, CD-ROM making, appeals, "independent" appeals, etc all acruing charges. It would cost over €100 just to be told: Fukk off, commercial sensitivity.schemingbohemia wrote: »There is commercial sensitivity to most of these decisions though so how should they get around that legally?
Why the hell should any company being GIVEN a virtually free licence to run exclusive or semi-exclusive public transport services with competition being severely regulated have ANY expectation of privacy?
Even in bad old deregulated UK the traffic commissioners publishes all applications, renewals, alterations and cancellations of licences but here where the public have no choice but to use the few licenced services granted we get next to no clarity on how these licences get issued to specific people.
No ability to check the conditions are being adhered to because we do not get told what conditions they are issued under.
No ability to check that an applicant that could provide a better service to the public has been denied because Cowboy McBackhander got in there first.
No ability to check that the interests of the taxpayer who funds PSO services and the paying passengers who have no alternative but to use the licenced services are being put first.schemingbohemia wrote: »List of current licensed services available here
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/bus-licensing/view-list-of-current-licences/
That is the most uninformative, useless piece of crap. It doesn't even accurately list the start and finish locations of many routes. No intermediate stops, no consistency between licences, no schedules, fares, frequency, timetables, stops, bus types, accessibility requirements, etc.schemingbohemia wrote: »What kind of transparency are you looking for from them?
Full transparency. They are issuing licences for essential public services, the public should have every right to know what the are at, even if some decisions or applications need to be done in private (I would strongly argue they do not) there is absolutely no justification for the entire process to be archived and available for inspection subsequently.schemingbohemia wrote: »How many decisions have been taken to judicial review by aggrieved bus operators since the formation of the NTA? I would guess less than half a dozen, that doesn't seem to me to indicate a poor management of the licensing regime.
I have no idea how many, do you or are you just pulling a figure from your arse?
The idea that a secretive process is above board because not many court cases have been taken is just preposterous. Not withstanding the expense of court proceedings in Ireland short of having spies in Dot/NTA how are potential litigants to know if they have been treated fairly any more than the public does?
The joke is that even with the very limited access to information it is pretty much bullsh!t that NTA are not making decisions against the taxpayer and/or public transport user interest. There are a number of examples of commercial licences being issued that duplicate or undermine PSO revenues.0 -
What is the justification for making startups/new companies match the terms and conditions of existing monopolies when entering a new market? Can you name one free market in the world that does this?Boulevardier wrote: »If Irish and EU law forbids that, then that is a scandal.
Could there not be a sectoral regulating agreement such as that in the hospitality sector?
Your attitude is that BE should be run for the staff rather than the customer. If BE cannot compete on a route yet other companies can, then it must take steps to become more competitive on that route or withdraw. That is what a free market is about.0 -
sat matt wrote:This I cannot understand though as it seems only a year or so ago they were buying new buses for it at close to half a million € / bus. It speaks woeful management to me
The difference in the newer and older buses might not be obvious but it was to me on my return journey on a new bus where I couldn't sit my laptop on my lap because they've reduced the space to fit more seats in.
Bizarrely the new bus had USB plug points but the driver hadn't a clue how to turn them on.0 -
Advertisement
-
Huh?
You think EU law should stifle competition by artificially inflating pay rates to unsustainable public sector levels?
there would be no stifling of competition by insuring the equalisation of terms and conditions for all employees in the same grade within a sector. they're would be no bringing wages up to supposed unsustainible public sector levels as the public sector have taken huge pay cuts and bus eireann drivers for example are within the market rate of pay for ireland.Anita Blow wrote: »What is the justification for making startups/new companies match the terms and conditions of existing monopolies when entering a new market? Can you name one free market in the world that does this?
Your attitude is that BE should be run for the staff rather than the customer. If BE cannot compete on a route yet other companies can, then it must take steps to become more competitive on that route or withdraw. That is what a free market is about.
free market, yes. regulated for the greater good market, no, all has to be equal across the board for the greater good of insuring equality, standards, and fairness for all workers and users.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »there would be no stifling of competition by insuring the equalisation of terms and conditions for all employees in the same grade within a sector. they're would be no bringing wages up to supposed unsustainible public sector levels as the public sector have taken huge pay cuts and bus eireann drivers for example are within the market rate of pay for ireland.
I'm afraid there is little you can say to convince me (and I suspect many others) that private sector operators should be forced to implement the very policies that are driving BE to the end of the road.0 -
Existing labour laws and a minimum wage ensure minimum standards of employment and fairness for all users across all sectors. Bus Eireann is no different.end of the road wrote: »Huh?
You think EU law should stifle competition by artificially inflating pay rates to unsustainable public sector levels?
there would be no stifling of competition by insuring the equalisation of terms and conditions for all employees in the same grade within a sector. they're would be no bringing wages up to supposed unsustainible public sector levels as the public sector have taken huge pay cuts and bus eireann drivers for example are within the market rate of pay for ireland.Anita Blow wrote: »What is the justification for making startups/new companies match the terms and conditions of existing monopolies when entering a new market? Can you name one free market in the world that does this?
Your attitude is that BE should be run for the staff rather than the customer. If BE cannot compete on a route yet other companies can, then it must take steps to become more competitive on that route or withdraw. That is what a free market is about.
free market, yes. regulated for the greater good market, no, all has to be equal across the board for the greater good of insuring equality, standards, and fairness for all workers and users.
Are Lidl and Aldi forced to pay the same as Supervalu and Dunnes? Does ESB pay the same as Bord Gais? Should Virgin have been made pay the same as Eir?
I'm sorry but your protectionist wishes are not applicable in the real world. Forcing companies to adopt an over-inflated wage bill for no other reason than to protect the terms of the staff of the monopoly at the expense of the customer. We live in a free market. Private enterprise is here to stay, and so far it has been great for the consumer. It has led to lower prices, more frequent schedules and more routes.
You will reject all of this despite it being fact simply because your version of "the greater good" is maintaining favourable overtime pay and unrealistic shift patterns/staffing levels at a higher cost and poorer quality service to the consumer0 -
In reference to Bus Eireann having a license turned down I have never read this before outside unsubstantiated posts on a forum. Can you please provide a media or official source for your claim that they were discriminated against?
As I am such a nice chap I went and searched for you, either that or I knew it was very unlikely you would go looking for something that went against your preconceived notions.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bus-firm-faces-just-635-a-day-fine-for-running-illegal-service-26576620.htmlIndo 2009 wrote:CityLink is owned by the world's second largest transport group, ComfortDelGro, which had a turnover of $1.5bn (€1bn) in 2008.
The service started operating on October 1, and has been sharply criticised by local bus operators. Jim Burke from Go Bus, which operates a rival service, said CityLink's activities were damaging his business.
"We were the first operator to have a non-stop service, and we applied for our licence in June 2006," he said. "We only got a letter of offer in February this year. It has had a major impact on us, we'd be down 50pc on passenger numbers."
Bus Eireann last night warned the "illegal activity" was damaging revenues which would have a knock-on effect on services.
"We have always used revenues from services such as Galway-Dublin to help maintain loss-making routes in rural areas, but these unlicensed services are now making it even harder to keep those rural services going," a spokesman said.
Damage
"It would appear that CityLink is trying to damage indigenous bus operators by running illegal services that enable them to 'cherrypick' our customers."
The commercial semi-state transport company also applied for a licence to operate direct services in 2005 but is still awaiting a decision.
The Department of Transport confirmed it had instructed CityLink to stop operating the service, and that the company had refused to do so. But it admitted that if convicted the company faced a fine of €63.49 on conviction and €6.35 for every day during which the offence continues.
Is that enough for you to stop insinuating I am lying?
Go Bus applied 2006, Bus Eireann earlier in 2005, Citylink? who knows, all we do know is they ilegally started and were subsequently given licence in 2009.
Either Citylink applied before Go Bus else and Citylink + Bus Eireann should have the licences or they applied after so Go-Bus and Bus Eireann should have the licences.
Is it not interesting that both private operators ended up with licences for the most profitable route in the country while the state operator is still locked out despite probably applying first and definitely applying before at least one of them.
Yeah, sure no dodgy dealings going on in bus licencing, what possible reason would it be for this government activity to be carried out in full view of the public rather than behind closed doors? :rolleyes:
The timeframes in that article also show why operators, particularly Bus Eireann seemed to stagnate through the 2000s under the dead hand of the DoT.
Apply for licence in 2005; still waiting for a response in 2009.
It explains why after a solid decade of expansion with additional services on nearly all major routes through the 1990s Bus Eireann's timetables remained almost identical from 2003/4 onwards (with the exception of cross-border routes), they waited years and sometimes couldn't get any approval for changes.0 -
Full NTA statement:
“Suggestions that decisions made by the National Transport Authority (NTA) in granting commercial licences to bus operators have been to blame for the difficulties being experienced by Bus Éireann, simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
“The notion that there is saturation on the inter-city corridors served by Expressway services, and that the NTA grants licences to operators at the drop of a hat, is well wide of the mark.
“In fact since 2011, we have rejected almost as many applications for licences on these key routes, as we have granted.
Carefully worded spin there. That other applications have been rejected does not mean that corridors are not saturated.
What's the basis or criteria for allowing an application? A race to the bottom on price?0 -
Is that enough for you to stop insinuating I am lying?
I never used the word lie, lying or liar so I'd appreciate it if you could stop making such allegations against me since they have no basis on reality, What I said is that I had not seen it mentioned before apart from posts on a forum and I was asking for some factual back-up for the matter which you have now provided - I never accused you of lying and I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that allegation.[Citylink? who knows, all we do know is they ilegally started and were subsequently given licence in 2009. Either Citylink applied before Go Bus else and Citylink + Bus Eireann should have the licences or they applied after so Go-Bus and Bus Eireann should have the licences.
Based on regulations that were brought in later in 2009 that would indeed be the case, but what you fail to mention is that the licensing act was reformed during 2009 and different rules applied following the passing of the new act to which applied before this, so you cannot apply rules which did not exist at a time that a decision was made.
I have also been consistent in my mentions that illegal operators should not be rewarded with a license. That has always been my view of The Patton Flyer and Citylink. They should not have been awarded a license and I felt at the time they were making a mockery of the system and that that hasn't change. I still firmlyYeah, sure no dodgy dealings going on in bus licencing
During the time-frame we were talking about there was a different party issuing and deciding on licenses and long waits for a license to be turned around were common, this effected both public and private operators. I am sure you have heard the case of the Patton Flyer and also Dublin Bus who were the subject of issues on the 37 route because of the Urbus service just to name a few who had serious issues with the Department of Transport.
In addition not only was there a different body in charge, there was a completely different set of laws as well with the Road Transport Act from 1932 being in place which the then Department of Transport were required to adhere t which clearly would have had impact on what decision such party could and couldn't make.
But if you claim that a different body operating to different laws 8 years ago is justifiable way to attack the NTA go ahead, the fact that is all you can come up with to beat them with pretty much shows that you are increasingly desperate to clutch at any straws that you can in the absence of any directly supporting proof that somehow the NTA is not acting fairly.
The NTA cannot speak for what other parties have done in the past and they cannot change laws which existed in the past. If you make a change to a law it can only be the law going forward, you cannot back-date it. The NTA since their formation have been required to adhere to the terms of the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 and that is what they have done. Blaming them for the Department for Transport sticking to a different act is farcical.What possible reason would it be for this government activity to be carried out in full view of the public rather than behind closed doors? :rolleyes:
There has to be commercial confidentiality to this activity. Do you honestly believe that if someone requests a license this should be advertised to the competition before it is even issued? No public body working with any commercial sector can do that.The timeframes in that article also show why operators, particularly Bus Eireann seemed to stagnate through the 2000s under the dead hand of the DoT.
I don't disagree that the DOT was a dead hand, but as I said they were acting to a different rulebook to what the NTA are now, so I don't see a valid comparison of somehow comparing a regime with one rulebook with a different regime with a totally different rulebook.
As stated before, the licensing system failed everyone under the 1932 act. To say that just public companies lost out is incorrect. The process was slow and the law that governed it was not fit for purpose, which is why it was overhauled and since then licenses have been turned around in a much more speedy manner.0 -
Carefully worded spin there. That other applications have been rejected does not mean that corridors are not saturated.
It depends how you define saturated at the end of the day doesn't it?
The unions claim that this is the case on corridors where Bus Eireann is doing poorly, but do you think for one moment if Bus Eireann was offered a license on a route they currently do not serve they would say they didn't want to run it because they were worrying about the market being saturated by adding an additional service?
The problem I find with the term saturation is that it's normally followed by the claim that there are too many services operated on a particular route, normally followed by somebody claiming that someone else, normally who has a much higher load factor must cut back to stop this, which is essentially a thinly veiled way of saying, they are filling their buses and we are not, make them cut some of their services so we can have more passengers.What's the basis or criteria for allowing an application?
Main criteria is two operators on any commercial route within the Republic of Ireland with non predatory timetables or stop locations. There are other criteria as well, but those are the main two. I believe that there is a guide to Bus Licensing on the relevant section of the NationalTransport.ie website however I cannot appear to access it at the moment.
On cross border services they are not subject to the same regulations so in theory an operator could operate a predatory service from the same stops as another operator, running at exactly the same times since these services do not need a license and simply require a permit to allow them to operate international services. In addition as many operators as they wanted could operate here.A race to the bottom on price?
The NTA's obligation in respect of commercial services is to the passenger and the public transport user only and I think they have been pretty clear on this.0 -
Anita Blow wrote: »Existing labour laws and a minimum wage ensure minimum standards of employment and fairness for all users across all sectors. Bus Eireann is no different.
Are Lidl and Aldi forced to pay the same as Supervalu and Dunnes? Does ESB pay the same as Bord Gais? Should Virgin have been made pay the same as Eir?
I'm sorry but your protectionist wishes are not applicable in the real world. Forcing companies to adopt an over-inflated wage bill for no other reason than to protect the terms of the staff of the monopoly at the expense of the customer. We live in a free market. Private enterprise is here to stay, and so far it has been great for the consumer. It has led to lower prices, more frequent schedules and more routes.
You will reject all of this despite it being fact simply because your version of "the greater good" is maintaining favourable overtime pay and unrealistic shift patterns/staffing levels at a higher cost and poorer quality service to the consumer
it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry. they're are no over inflated wages within the rank and file workers within the bus industry in ireland. maybe at management level but that's it. the bus industry in ireland is not a free market, it's a regulated market. they're are no unrealistic shift patterns, staffing levels or anything within bus eireann, dublin bus or irish rail. there is staff to run the service and cover should staff be unavailible, with over time to keep costs down (otherwise they would have to employ more staff) as it should be. i should think other operators in ireland operate along the same way.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote:it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry. they're are no over inflated wages within the rank and file workers within the bus industry in ireland. maybe at management level but that's it. the bus industry in ireland is not a free market, it's a regulated market. they're are no unrealistic shift patterns, staffing levels or anything within bus eireann, dublin bus or irish rail. there is staff to run the service and cover should staff be unavailible, with over time to keep costs down (otherwise they would have to employ more staff) as it should be. i should think other operators in ireland operate along the same way.
Operators shouldn't operate the same way as that just means more expensive fares and worse services to the detriment of nearly everyone in the industry. About the only people who benefit would be a minority of current drivers. Look at the airline industry low cost airlines have been great. More people are able to fly on a more regular basis. That means more jobs for airline pilots and Stewart's. More jobs in airports and more business and jobs in and near the towns and cities of those airports.
Same with the bus industry. If new operators can operate routes that bus eireann can't because of its high cost base it means more jobs in the long term for bus drivers. You can't just pick a bus driver of the street, buses do need some level of skill to operate so drivers will never be destitute. About the only people who lose out are the minority of bus drivers employed by bus eireann and other staff within the company. Everyone else including other drivers win. More jobs, cheaper prices, more regular buses and better quality.0 -
end of the road wrote: »it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry. they're are no over inflated wages within the rank and file workers within the bus industry in ireland. maybe at management level but that's it. the bus industry in ireland is not a free market, it's a regulated market. they're are no unrealistic shift patterns, staffing levels or anything within bus eireann, dublin bus or irish rail. there is staff to run the service and cover should staff be unavailible, with over time to keep costs down (otherwise they would have to employ more staff) as it should be. i should think other operators in ireland operate along the same way.
Fortunately that's not happening and you're unlikely to convince enough people to ever make it happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
Operators shouldn't operate the same way as that just means more expensive fares and worse services to the detriment of nearly everyone in the industry.
it doesn't . overtime is cheeper then employing extra staff and the costs that go with employing extra staff. i personally believe in employing more staff but i understand why overtime is often chosen instead and i also recognise staff sometimes do want it.Look at the airline industry low cost airlines have been great. More people are able to fly on a more regular basis. That means more jobs for airline pilots and Stewart's. More jobs in airports and more business and jobs in and near the towns and cities of those airports.
i agree but the airline industry cannot be compared to the bus industry. they are both very different apart from the fact aircraft and busses have wheels and engines.Same with the bus industry. If new operators can operate routes that bus eireann can't because of its high cost base it means more jobs in the long term for bus drivers. You can't just pick a bus driver of the street, buses do need some level of skill to operate so drivers will never be destitute. About the only people who lose out are the minority of bus drivers employed by bus eireann and other staff within the company. Everyone else including other drivers win. More jobs, cheaper prices, more regular buses and better quality.
none of that has anything to do with my suggestion, which doesn't change any of those. allowing the terms of people to go down in the name of cheeper prices cannot be allowed in a regulated industry. as said all ready anyway both pay between bus eireann and the others is little different anyway for which we can be thankful so if that is the case then legally insuring equality may not be needed. bus eireann can't make as much on their expressway routes as they could because of the fact their expressway routes effectively double up as a PSO route along all or part of the journey. private operators don't have that worry. also, they're won't be any more jobs for drivers as the industry is regulated and operators have to apply for licences.Fortunately that's not happening and you're unlikely to convince enough people to ever make it happen.
what's not happening? staff on overtime rather then employing extra staff? i think that is happening all ready.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »what's not happening? staff on overtime rather then employing extra staff? i think that is happening all ready.
Your wage equalisation plan isn't happening, and isn't likely to happen.0 -
end of the road wrote:i agree but the airline industry cannot be compared to the bus industry. they are both very different apart from the fact aircraft and busses have wheels and engines.
They are not that different. They transport people from point A to B along a wide variety of designated routes. Roads in the case of buses and prescribed airline traffic routes in the air. Buses have far lower capital and maintaince costs compared to airplanes so there's no reason that success couldn't be replicated. Training is also less for bus drivers.
The only people who are currently losing out from commercial operators are the minority of people within the industry employed by bus Eireann.0 -
end of the road wrote:it doesn't . overtime is cheeper then employing extra staff and the costs that go with employing extra staff. i personally believe in employing more staff but i understand why overtime is often chosen instead and i also recognise staff sometimes do want it.
What has any of that to do with I posted. As much as I disagree with you your posting does generally make sense.0 -
end of the road wrote:none of that has anything to do with my suggestion, which doesn't change any of those. allowing the terms of people to go down in the name of cheeper prices cannot be allowed in a regulated industry. as said all ready anyway both pay between bus eireann and the others is little different anyway for which we can be thankful so if that is the case then legally insuring equality may not be needed. bus eireann can't make as much on their expressway routes as they could because of the fact their expressway routes effectively double up as a PSO route along all or part of the journey. private operators don't have that worry. also, they're won't be any more jobs for drivers as the industry is regulated and operators have to apply for licences.
If there are more buses and more routes there will be more jobs. Currently( at least with current technology) a bus driver can only drive one bus at a time. If the number of buses on the road at any one time increases there's an increased need for drivers. More operators, operating more routes with increased frequency means more buses are needed and therefore drivers.0 -
It depends how you define saturated at the end of the day doesn't it?
The unions claim that this is the case on corridors where Bus Eireann is doing poorly, but do you think for one moment if Bus Eireann was offered a license on a route they currently do not serve they would say they didn't want to run it because they were worrying about the market being saturated by adding an additional service?
The problem I find with the term saturation is that it's normally followed by the claim that there are too many services operated on a particular route, normally followed by somebody claiming that someone else, normally who has a much higher load factor must cut back to stop this, which is essentially a thinly veiled way of saying, they are filling their buses and we are not, make them cut some of their services so we can have more passengers
Saturation is a clear term. It is too many services/operators for the corridor to sustain. If BE entering a market caused saturation, they should not be given that licence - the problem there is BE being offered a licence by a regulator.
There is a point where you have to say stop. I'll take a wild guess and this point for you would be a very different and larger number than mine. :pac:
It differs from corridor to corridor, though the NTA comments I originally quoted are meaningless in their attempt to resolve those accusations they outlined.0 -
end of the road wrote: »it's not protectionist. it's equalisation of terms and conditions within a regulated industry.
Considering most of the private operators are operating a better quality of service and the staff in the most seem happy . Why don't BÉ staff equalise with the private operators?0 -
Unions0
-
Saturation is a clear term. It is too many services/operators for the corridor to sustain. If BE entering a market caused saturation, they should not be given that licence - the problem there is BE being offered a licence by a regulator.
For me saturation is when there is a number of operators and none of them are making money and all are losing money because the loads are being spread too thin among all the operators making the service unviable for all of them.
If one operator on a route is filling their buses and/or having to run reliefs at peak time whilst another operator is running vehicles that are less than 50% occupied, then this is not because of saturation in my view, it's simply that the service the later is running is not attracting enough passengers and instead are choosing a competing service.0 -
Advertisement
-
I wonder does neoliberal/free market policies and 'defunding' of public services have had anything to do with this?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement